預測市場再陷大爭議：你在交易事實，還是規則？

Original | Odaily (@OdailyChina)

Author | Asher (@Asher_ 0210)

Prediction markets are arguably the hottest track in Web3 discussions right now.

Trading around predictions on macro events, the crypto industry, and even entertainment topics continues to heat up, with discussion volume and participant numbers constantly rising. However, as the market develops rapidly, some discordant voices have gradually emerged—some events, upon settlement, deviate from user expectations based on common sense or "real-world understanding," sparking controversies about rule design, fairness, and even platform credibility.

Recently, two highly controversial events occurred consecutively in prediction markets. Below, Odaily will sort out and discuss them.

Polymarket: US Rescue of Downed Pilot in Iran Ruled as US Invasion of Iran

On April 3rd, a US Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jet was shot down by Iranian air defense systems in southwestern Iran. The two crew members (a pilot and a Weapon Systems Officer/WSO) ejected. One was rescued quickly, while the other was missing for several days, hiding in the Iranian mountains.

• The US military subsequently launched a Search and Rescue (SAR) operation involving armed aircraft, helicopters, etc., ultimately successfully rescuing the second, severely injured crew member (Trump personally announced "WE GOT HIM").
• The rescue operation involved US forces entering Iranian territory (mountain search and rescue, possible ground or low-altitude operations), drawing attention given the current sensitive geopolitical conflict backdrop.

Since US forces entering Iranian territory could, to some extent, be considered a US invasion of Iran, this directly impacted the prediction event on the Polymarket platform regarding when the US would invade Iran (US forces enter Iran by?).

According to the settlement rules, active US military personnel (including special operations forces) entering Iranian land territory before the specified date counts as an invasion. Downed pilots do not count as an invasion, but the special forces sent by the US military did indeed enter Iranian territory to rescue the pilot. Therefore, special forces entering Iran to rescue the pilot meets the criteria for a "Yes" ruling on the US invasion of Iran.

The "pilot rescue" event has been judged by Polymarket as a US invasion of Iran, sparking strong community controversy.

Those supporting "counts as entry" (Yes side) argue that this operation fits the definition of "entry" in the rules. US special forces deliberately entered Iranian territory to execute a mission, and the rules explicitly state "special operation forces will qualify," also covering "for operational purposes (including humanitarian)." Objectively, this is the first confirmed ground infiltration by US forces under the current conflict backdrop; US personnel did indeed set foot on Iranian soil, thus it should be considered "entry."

Those opposing "counts as entry" (No side) believe this definition is an overextension. The operation's nature is a short-term, limited-scale humanitarian rescue, not a combat invasion, nor does it involve occupation intent, failing to align with the public's common-sense understanding of "US forces entering Iran." Furthermore, the rules explicitly exclude "pilots who are shot down... will not qualify," and this operation centered around a downed pilot, possessing a "forced entry" nature, logically should fall under a similar exception. Referencing past cases (e.g., similar regional actions not deemed invasions), rescue actions should not equate to military entry; ruling Yes might encourage marginal interpretations of rules, undermining market seriousness and consistency. The Chinese community also generally believes "entering Iran" should refer more to large-scale ground or amphibious operations, not short-term "rescue and leave" actions.

Predict.fun: Polymarket Issuing Stablecoin Ruled as Token Launch

On the evening of April 6th, Polymarket officially announced on X a comprehensive exchange upgrade:

• Rebuilding the trading engine, upgrading smart contracts;
• Launching a new native collateral token, Polymarket USD (1:1 pegged to USDC, intended to replace USDC.e and reduce bridging risks).

The second point, mentioning the launch of the native collateral token Polymarket USD, directly impacted the probability of two related prediction events on the Predict.fun platform: one regarding token launch; the other regarding post-launch market cap:

1. When will Polymarket launch a token? (Will Polymarket launch a token by ___ ?)

2. Polymarket FDV one day after launch (Polymarket FDV above ___ one day after launch?);

According to the settlement rule documentation, it clearly states "any fungible token issued by Polymarket counts as 'token launch' in this event," and stablecoins are, of course, no exception. Therefore, the Polymarket stablecoin meets the criteria for a "Yes" ruling.

Relevant settlement rule explanation

The community debated this.

Supporters argue that, based on the literal rule text, "issuing a token" is not limited to "governance token" but is a general term for all tokens. Under this premise, Polymarket USD, as a fungible token (ERC20/SPL, etc.) issued by Polymarket, essentially fits the definition of "token launch." Furthermore, the official's subsequent clarification was more a reiteration of existing rules than a temporary rule change, lending it some legitimacy in terms of compliance.

However, skeptics do not accept this interpretation. On one hand, they believe including stablecoins in the "token launch" category is an over-interpretation of the rules, a typical word game; on the other hand, even if stablecoins are acknowledged as "token launch," the core of this prediction market is "Polymarket FDV," not "Polymarket USD FDV." Stablecoins serve more as collateral or settlement tools; their market cap structure is fundamentally different from a project's main token (e.g., a POLY governance token), and therefore should not be directly equated with or substitute for the project's overall valuation logic.

Which Side Are You On?

Looking at the overall picture, controversial events in prediction markets essentially revolve around a core question: are you betting on "reality" or betting on "rules"? Often, these two do not completely overlap.

For us participating in prediction markets, understanding the rules themselves might be more important than judging the event's direction. How information sources are defined, whether there are exception clauses, whether there is room for interpretation—these details can directly determine wins or losses at critical moments.

Precisely because of this, some high-probability events that look like "sure bets" are not without risk; they might instead be potential "lose-it-all" situations. Many reversals happen precisely in these overlooked details. Rather than betting blindly, taking an extra look at the rules is more useful than complaining after losing money.